Talking with Chris Hayes and Chris Mooney about denial of science

I was on Up, with Chris Hayes, talking with Chris Mooney (author of The Republican Brain), John McWhorter, and Michelle Goldberg, about the psychology of science denial. I think Mooney is summarizing the literature correctly in saying that conservatives are psychologically different from liberals, in ways that feed in to the current denial of science. But I point out that both sides deny science when it contradicts their sacred values. The two sides are not equal nowadays — the Republican Party is spinning away from reality, as Mann and Ornstein argue. But this is a recent development — not an eternal fact about conservatives, and it is to some degree a reaction to the increasing liberalism of scientists. I suggest that the best way to reach agreement is by indirect methods, creating trusting relationships first, before letting people discuss and debate across party lines.

12 Comments

I can’t help but snicker when I hear people such as Chris Mooney talk of the “Republican Brain” and it’s innate aversion to science. I haven’t yet read his book because I am reluctant to part with money for something that on the surface would appear to be a waste thereof. Perhaps his argument is more nuanced but the oft repeated notion of so-called conservative science denial to me speaks more to the biases of the liberal minded and as Jon has pointed out, their chronic misunderstanding of those less liberal than themselves.

So what exactly does it mean to say that conservative minded folk are “anti-science”? Is it that they reject the scientific method? If this is the conclusion then the holder of such a belief has likely never spent much time around engineers or other fields that rely on hard science where conservatives are numerous. As shown in a recent study, conservative trust in scientific institutions once out numbered that of liberals but has since waned. Why is this? A sudden surge in creationist revivalism? Has the modern world in its continued complexity taken its toll on these beleaguered minds sending them back to superstition? Perhaps. This may very well be the case on both sides of the political spectrum.

Perhaps there is another reason for a declining trust in scientific institutions: the large swaths of garbage science and those finagling for the veneer of scientific truth on what is merely their personal political values. Here in Canada it is possible to obtain not only a credit but a DEGREE in something called “Gender Equality and Social Justice”. Now I would never begrudge anyone for holding this particular political perspective, I would encourage them to argue for it in the public square and believe that a plurality of views is vital to the health of a society. That said, the idea that any department with such explicitly stated political aims can produce any research that divests itself of ideological bias is absurd. While other fields such as sociology and psychology are more respectable they too are affected by advocacy science as seen in the recent case of disgraced Dutch social psychologist Diederik A. Stapel and the ideological insularity that Jon has spoken about at length in the past. In more methodological terms, implying scientific proof based on a sample size of 40 undergrads is not exactly the hallmark of credible science but seems too often to be considered respectable practice in the human sciences. A re-reading of Richard Feynman’s “cargo cult science” should be ordered for these departments in particular.

So are there conservative bumpkins out there that believe the earth is 7,000 years old? Sure, just as there are dim-bulb liberal soccer moms who don’t vaccinate their kids and think everything from the juice box to the jungle gym is going to kill their children. That ordinary, non-specialist people have science literacy issues should come as no surprise. The real threat to a society is when those who are held in high regard and trusted, the academy, the vanguard of scientific rationalism become swayed by and oblivious to their own ideological biases.

Perhaps you are a bit insulated being that you’re Canada. In the USA most conservative politicians deny global warming, and want creationism taught alongside evolution. They feel if they acknowledge global warming, then they will have to pass legislation that will hurt business. Conservatives are adhering to “junk science” in this regard, as there is no serious doubt global warming is happening.

Excellent. I think McWhorter doesn’t know much about macroevolution eg- gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium, but I agree with the points made by Mooney and Haidt about the scientific ‘third rail’ of Creationism. Mooney’s final point, that we could get past all this if only we really try requires almost no effort from the left point-of-view. The problem is, as it will always be, with the Conservatives. They insist on living in the recent past or the distant past; heaven forbid they should cope with the uncertainties of the future. Obviously, their problem is constitutional, and I think, insoluble.

Very nicely put: “any department with such explicitly stated political aims can produce any research that divests itself of ideological bias is absurd.” I fully agree. And I agree that the cause of the right’s increasing anti-scientific feeling is in part due to the increasingly expressed liberalism of the sciences, especially the social sciences. But I do blame the right for the influence of targeted campaigns of disinformation on global warming and, earlier, intelligent design, with public relations strategies to cause a controversy and then say “we should teach the controversy.” Mooney covers these sorts of PR campaigns very well.

I am sure Chris has done a marvelous job documenting the manner in which conservative think tanks have attempted to sway public opinion on various issues. I do not doubt that these organizations have at times made unhelpful contributions to the public debate on a variety of issues much the same as their liberal counterparts do. That said, I have noticed that advocates for action on climate change often vastly overestimate the influence of bete-noir conservative think tanks in the failure to achieve meaningful policy (green groups such as Greenpeace and WWF aren’t exactly holding vegan potluck fundraisers every weekend to try and scrape together some cash for campaigns). While I don’t discount that they have some effect, more likely it is the lack of effective alternatives to fossil fuels and the reluctance to sacrifice economic growth that stymies any kind of action (after all, the democrats had a majority in both houses as well as the presidency and could not pass significant legislation).

Another problem is scientists who overextend their credentials and try to use scientific authority for what is merely their prefered policy. The science says that C02 is a greenhouse gas that may in fact produce feedbacks that lead to significant warming it doesn’t SAY that we should subsidize solar panel companies to deal with it. Worse are advocates who claim the authority of science for political action they would be in favour of anyways. Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein et al. think we should build a global socialist paradise to deal with climate change, disagree and you get the old “What are you? Some kind of dunder headed bumpkin? Don’t you believe in SCIENCE?”. Both the Activist-Scientist and Scientist-Activist serve to dilute the credibility of the argument and damage the impression that they are honest brokers.

It is easy to take for granted the unprecedented growth that has transpired in the past 200 years, but the very fact that I -a layman- am sitting here typing a comment to one of my favourite authors instead of getting some rest for a 15 hour day of grueling farm labour has much to do with cheap, abundant energy. As scary and undesirable as some of the prospects of climate change are, the prospects of an impoverished, subsistence based existence are more tangibly undesirable to billions of poor around the world and as long as an effective, cheap means of alleviating that is available, it will be reached for.

A final remark on Chris Mooney’s book. It is worth noting that he did not name it “The Political Brain”, he very easily could have. I am sure many liberals and democrats will read it, chortle with smug sense of superiority and recommend it to other likeminded friends. It is to my eyes what appears to be a dumb, partisan arrow that will only inflame and be cited by the more alarmist conservatives as proof of Soviet style pathologization of differing political views. It stands in stark contrast to the fine book you have written.

“Explicitly stated political aims” are expressed in the study of gender equality and social justice issues? Gender equality and social justice are topics for exploration: what are the effects of gender inequality on economic development, especially in developing countries? What are the implications of social injustice on human development indices (education, infant mortality, employment rates, etc.). To say that the answers to these questions, and many more, are presumed to have a political bias is absurd, and shows a spectacular ignorance about the nature of questions that are explored by legions of policy-makers as well as academics. Just because you, Mr. Haidt, and you, Kuze, clearly do not understand the nature of the matters you trivialize and denigrate by calling them politically suspect, does not make them so. Your views on this are as ridiculous as saying the study of, say, free will, is inherently political and doomed to produced ideologically biased clap-trap. Indeed, millions of Americans credit God as the one with the free will: he’s the guy who decides who wins which wars, who deserves to live, who should die, who will get rich, who will get a good job. Ad nauseum. This lot would likely see any exploration of free will as just another indication of the godlessness of the educated class.

You think a degree program titled “Gender Equality and Social Justice” is neutral with respect to those values, not designed to promote them? Haidt and Kuze don’t trivialize or denigrate such matters, only point out the bias inherent in them.

If as we age our world view does not become more conservative in some areas and more liberal in others, then I believe we have shut our hearts and minds to the reality of life. If at 58 I believe just as I did at 18 then something has gone terribly wrong in my life. When I saw the radicals of the 60’s move from students to professors to lead researchers without ever seeming to question or change their own ideologies I began to wonder about the veracity of their work. Many of these ideologues world view has expanded no further than the day they first walked onto campus. The search for truth in science has been bastardized into the search for proof. A true ideologue will never recognize the difference and it taints their work and the scientific community as a whole. The truth is, many scientists either can’t or won’t check their politics at the door, left or right.

Ever stop to think that maybe you and Arthur Brooks are the exceptions and not the rule? You spend enough time on MSNBC or with Bill Moyers and you will believe that conservatives are all unloving, ignorant, Bible thumpers who refuse to believe in anything scientific or progressive. Watching that clip I was amazed at how conservatives were spoken about. Change conservative or Republican to black and liberal to white and listen to that conversation over again. It will give you pause for consideration – the stereotyping was unbelievable. Politics may divide us, but our entertainment choices build the walls between us.

So you’re going to completely ignore the fact that those who accuse REPUBLICANS and CONSERVATIVES of turning away from or denying science are the same ones who:

1) Profess that humans have usurped forces of nature that are demonstrably orders of magnitude greater than anything humans have ever been able to accomplish, even over vast stretches of time, and now are a deciding factor in weather, temperature and climate?

2) Take the word of people, without even bothering to “check the math” who not only admitted up front that they felt it was appropriate to lie to get people to do what they wanted them to do, but were also caught red handed deliberately and repeatedly falsifying data and essentially gloating over doing it so easily, often and successfully then, as if that were not enough, once caught and exposed,

3) “investigations that were obvious whitewashes, undertaken by teams consisting of those who were in on the essentially criminal mishandling of public funds used to bring about and perpetuate this hoax, or who stood to lose billions and the prestige of their institutions, concluded there was “nothing to see here” which is an even bigger denial of reality than the original claims that humans had assumed godlike powers and now were a primary, unstoppable force of nature.

Seriously, it’s hard to believe anyone who fell for Al Gore and his proven lies ever successfully passed, or even took, a single hard science or math class.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that you all seem to have missed the memo, so here’s the executive summary:

The number of “conservatives” who, for instance, choose strict creationism over a Darwinian evolutionary scheme is, in the grand scheme of things, probably on the way to near zero within a generation at most.

Furthermore, the number of “liberals” or “progressives” who refuse to accept that the theories of creation, evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive (and I first saw a lecture on this very point at that liberal bastion UCSD) is increasing.

So who exactly is it that needs to re-examine their belief systems again?

I vote it’s those who mistake politics for science and keep making “consensus” arguments while forgetting that truth, scientific or otherwise, doesn’t care how many people know or believe it. It just is, regardless.